ITAT Indore Judgments — July 2021

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee is free to file a recall application if their scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to withdraw the present appeal as per the scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted due inquiry and applied their mind to the issue of cash deposits, accepting the assessee's explanation supported by an agreement to sell agricultural land. Therefore, the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous case where the shares of Tubetech Engineering Limited were considered genuine. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated without proper service of notice under Section 148 were invalid. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable and adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated without proper service of notice under Section 148 were invalid. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable and adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated without proper service of notice under Section 148 were invalid. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable and adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities.

The assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal as per the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of loose papers found in a third party's premises without direct or indirect nexus to the assessee and without corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were based on surmises and conjectures, lacking independent verification. The assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing documentary evidence, and the revenue failed to produce contrary evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. The penalty was deemed unsustainable due to a vague show cause notice and the fact that no addition was made to the assessee's income for the year under appeal.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal as they have opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in levying the penalty as there was no evidence to prove the cash loan transaction and, crucially, no assessment proceedings were pending in the assessee's case to record the necessary satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to sustain the addition. Relying on previous judgments, particularly one involving the same company's shares, the Tribunal found no evidence of the assessee's involvement in any questionable activity.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were based on surmises and conjectures, lacking independent verification. The assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing documentary evidence, and the revenue failed to produce contrary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were based on surmises and conjectures, lacking independent verification. The assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing documentary evidence, and the revenue failed to produce contrary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were based on surmises and conjectures, lacking independent verification. The assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing documentary evidence, and the revenue failed to produce contrary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to sustain the addition. Relying on previous judgments, particularly one involving the same company's shares, the Tribunal found no evidence of the assessee's involvement in any questionable activity.

The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to sustain the addition. Relying on previous judgments, particularly one involving the same company's shares, the Tribunal found no evidence of the assessee's involvement in any questionable activity.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the present appeal because the assessee has opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The assessee is free to file an application for recall of the order if their application for the scheme is rejected.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for departmental appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The revenue did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate and detailed inquiries into the unsecured loans, including verifying the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The PCIT had not conducted any independent inquiry and erred in concluding the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities failed to sustain the addition without cogent material. The Tribunal allowed the claim for exemption of LTCG as the transactions were supported by documents, conducted through a recognized stock exchange, and met the conditions of Section 10(38).

The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities failed to sustain the addition without cogent material. The Tribunal allowed the claim for exemption of LTCG as the transactions were supported by documents, conducted through a recognized stock exchange, and met the conditions of Section 10(38).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were accordingly set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were accordingly set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly examining the merits of the case. The appeals were accordingly set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed orders without properly considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed the order without properly considering the merits of the case. The appeals were accordingly set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without a speaking order and without adjudicating the merits of the case, even if the assessee failed to appear. The CIT(A) was mandated to formulate points of dispute and record reasons for the decision.

The ITAT allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the CIT(A) passed an order without proper examination of the merits. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal as per the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeals. Therefore, the penalty orders were rendered infructuous and liable to be cancelled.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as per the rules of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The ITAT allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.